took a quick look. this impartial observer's opinion: the post history definitely makes the account look like someone's alt account. the ratio of shill posts: any other posts is very high. shill alt account. book it.
A took a quick look too. The post history definietly makes your account look like alt account. First 4 post is about giveaway. Even if you have a lot post's, 90% of your post is spam. I really dont care about your opinion. BTW:check your first 3 posts on forum  cool story. what's me posting in some giveaway threads in 2013, or posting in OT, have to do with you being a shill account? are you accusing me of shilling----if so, who was i shilling? every post from you (post #2 onward) is shilling Bob, then trashing Vod. that was the subject. But 90% or even 95% of your posts is spam with couple words(Of course you do that to get payment from signature campaign). Btw: just check SS. You have spam posts from 2013 year and from 2015 too. You still spamming nonsense Cool story becouse you attack people and your account look like alt account. Really you should write here becouse you are just spammer and signature campaign abuser with nonsense posts. I just wonder who alt are you. i take exception with your characterization. anyone is free to look through my post history. if i posted a lot in the off-topic forum (and secondarily in giveaway threads), that is not against any rules. i am not a shill, and that is very obvious. and it is not relevant to the fact that most of your post history is shilling one user: bob (and secondarily attacking vod) if i'm an alt, you could never figure it out. because i don't shill people like you. |
|
|
|
took a quick look. this impartial observer's opinion: the post history definitely makes the account look like someone's alt account. the ratio of shill posts: any other posts is very high. shill alt account. book it.
A took a quick look too. The post history definietly makes your account look like alt account. First 4 post is about giveaway. Even if you have a lot post's, 90% of your post is spam. I really dont care about your opinion. BTW:check your first 3 posts on forum cool story. what's me posting in some giveaway threads in 2013, or posting in OT, have to do with you being a shill account? are you accusing me of shilling----if so, who was i shilling? every post from you (post #2 onward) is shilling Bob, then trashing Vod. that was the subject. |
|
|
|
There are also no blacklists within Bitcoin XT. You are spreading misinformation, this is not conductive towards constructive discussion.
it seems there is some fundamental disagreement. the hard-coded list of deprioritized IP addresses fits the technical definition of a blacklist. (see: the dictionary) Wladimir also stated that is was a blacklist, and used that as a basis to reject Hearn's pull. clearly it is a list of IP addresses that is viewed with suspicion (after all, they were listed in the first place due to fears of DDOS) |
|
|
|
I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed. The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them. Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent. 1. Cause and effect; 2. Universal complexity; 3. Universal entropy. God.newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true. if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too.  the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations. I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard. it doesn't matter if they are understandable. newtonian physics is provably false. why would i use them for a basis to understand anything? "Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theoriessure, i can use "2+2=5" as a basis to "figure something out." that doesn't mean it will yield useful results. You are free, of course, to continue to go around in circles with this. Nobody, not even God, attempts to force anybody into understanding or believing anything... except the public schools, that is. well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.  for reference, i'll repost what i believe to be the crux of the issue: that's a tad dishonest. if we are going to discuss "existence", don't dumb down the complexity of the issue. if we can accept mere observations as truth, then there is absolutely no reason to discuss existence at all. the earth is still flat, etc. etc.---it was observed to be true at some point, yes? thus, to define "subjective perception" as "truth" is inherently wrong. it cannot be verified as objectively true.
in your example, there is a big difference between applying practical knowledge (which is useful but not necessarily true) and establishing universal truth. the question of the existence of god(s) necessarily falls into the latter category, as it attempts to make an objective/universal statement about existence.
sure, we have practical knowledge that the universe is complex---that says nothing about why it is complex, or if that idea even hold meaning at all. complexity, after all, is merely a relative term.
here is an example: say, i write something with a pencil (and you observe me doing so). one could say---as a practical truth---that i wrote something with a pencil. HOWEVER, from a universal perspective, the pencil may not, in fact, exist. and i may, in fact, just be a figment of your imagination. i may not exist at all. so then, to say that "i wrote something with a pencil"---while you may observe this to be true---may be universally false.
subjectivity is a bitch, ain't it? too bad there is no omniscient god to whisper all universal truths in our ears. because even if we thought there was, we would never be able to tell it apart from a hallucination.
|
|
|
|
It seems strange to me that some people do not think that Bitcoin needs to compete with other cryptocurrencies. That Bitcoin somehow exists in a vacuum and does not need to compete in the free market, that somehow Bitcoins success is guaranteed even if we all just sit on our holdings while having no regard to its utility.
you get this impression......how? because you're still stuck in this "small blockists vs. XT" dichotomy? look, those of us who oppose BIP101 aren't unequivocally opposed to increasing the block size limit. but "competing with altcoins" is not a legitimate reason to implement just any protocol change that increases the block size limit. do you understand? I can also agree that increasing the block size for the sole reason of competing with altcoins is not a good enough reason to implement a protocol change. However that over the long term it should also be considered important to stay competitive within a free market of cryptocurrencies otherwise Bitcoin would most likely be superseded by a competitor over the long term. I do not think that this is a unrealistic position to hold, I suspect we are most likely in agreement about this point. please point out specific examples, particularly by those who are active in the discussion. i've been watching this debate unfold for the last couple months. i see "1MBers" thrown around as a constant ad hominem, but i rarely see anyone actually defending this position. please recognize that if the answer is not 1MB OR BIP101, then another answer must be found. i dont give a shit about other altcoins. the reason scaling (read: scaling =/= only increasing block size limit) should be considered important is because scaling is integral to organic adoption. the main questions are 1. time and 2. proper implementation. |
|
|
|
I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed. The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them. Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent. 1. Cause and effect; 2. Universal complexity; 3. Universal entropy. God.newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true. if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too. the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations. I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard. it doesn't matter if they are understandable. newtonian physics is provably false. why would i use them for a basis to understand anything? "Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theoriessure, i can use "2+2=5" as a basis to "figure something out." that doesn't mean it will yield useful results. |
|
|
|
The idea isn't exactly new or bad, but new sections are rarely created. I guess with the activity in Meta being manageable a new section for ban appeals wasn't thought to be necessary.
maybe create a ban appeals thread and sticky it? that's an easy way for some ban appeals to slip through the cracks (not that it probably doesn't happen already). people appealing bans tend to be a bit.....pushy. this would be cause for them to be even more pushy, by constantly bumping other peoples' cases off the last page. |
|
|
|
It seems strange to me that some people do not think that Bitcoin needs to compete with other cryptocurrencies. That Bitcoin somehow exists in a vacuum and does not need to compete in the free market, that somehow Bitcoins success is guaranteed even if we all just sit on our holdings while having no regard to its utility.
you get this impression......how? because you're still stuck in this "small blockists vs. XT" dichotomy? look, those of us who oppose BIP101 aren't unequivocally opposed to increasing the block size limit. but "competing with altcoins" is not a legitimate reason to implement just any protocol change that increases the block size limit. do you understand? |
|
|
|
I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed. The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them. Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent. 1. Cause and effect; 2. Universal complexity; 3. Universal entropy. God.newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true. if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too. the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations. |
|
|
|
|
i think this is a great idea. i enjoy reading Meta to see and discuss forum policies and governance/the trust system/norms, but i absolutely don't care about ban appeals. seems like most ban appeals don't require much community input and are mod/admin issues.
|
|
|
|
that's the very essence of my point. for the reason that science is unprovable, so is religion, or any substantive sense of "god." if we cannot define what is sitting right in front of our eyes (we cannot---by definition---do so objectively), how can we possible attribute anything to "god?" that's nonsense. negating science =/= proving the existence of god. it just showcases the limits of our understanding---including the subject of existence. Are you sure the boss is going to pay you this week? No? Might as well quit right now. that's a tad dishonest. if we are going to discuss "existence", don't dumb down the complexity of the issue. if we can accept mere observations as truth, then there is absolutely no reason to discuss existence at all. the earth is still flat, etc. etc.---it was observed to be true at some point, yes? thus, to define "subjective perception" as "truth" is inherently wrong. it cannot be verified as objectively true. in your example, there is a big difference between applying practical knowledge (which is useful but not necessarily true) and establishing universal truth. the question of the existence of god(s) necessarily falls into the latter category, as it attempts to make an objective/universal statement about existence. sure, we have practical knowledge that the universe is complex---that says nothing about why it is complex, or if that idea even hold meaning at all. complexity, after all, is merely a relative term. here is an example: say, i write something with a pencil (and you observe me doing so). one could say---as a practical truth---that i wrote something with a pencil. HOWEVER, from a universal perspective, the pencil may not, in fact, exist. and i may, in fact, just be a figment of your imagination. i may not exist at all. so then, to say that "i wrote something with a pencil"---while you may observe this to be true---may be universally false. subjectivity is a bitch, ain't it? too bad there is no omniscient god to whisper all universal truths in our ears. because even if we thought there was, we would never be able to tell it apart from a hallucination. |
|
|
|
that's the very essence of my point. for the reason that science is unprovable, so is religion, or any substantive sense of "god." if we cannot define what is sitting right in front of our eyes (we cannot---by definition---do so objectively), how can we possible attribute anything to "god?" that's nonsense. negating science =/= proving the existence of god. it just showcases the limits of our understanding---including the subject of existence. |
|
|
|
|
uh, the very premise i am operating on does not concede that Newton's laws are accurate. actually, it would suggest that our understanding of physical laws is quite primitive and necessarily incorrect.
how do you define god? that may shed some light on this matter. if it's something extremely general, maybe i can agree.
|
|
|
|
In other words, why do atheists prefer to explain away observations by making up stories without any evidence?
Perhaps they are unaware of truth, or they are closed-minded, so they lash out against religions, which try to teach truth, but usually fail.
what is this "truth" you speak of? are you saying there is some kind of universal truth? how would you (or anyone) be able to recognize it as such? generally, religions, too, make unprovable assumptions about existence and of "truth." is lashing out against them unreasonable? my approach is to be skeptical of anything that is unprovable, unknowable. by definition, since human perception is subjective, that is virtually all knowledge. in other words, to be either a theist or an atheist is a nonsensical position to me. In the science religion, there are a few real and true laws. Three of these laws that prove the existence of God when combined are: 1. Cause and effect, otherwise known as action and reaction; 2. Universal entropy, with nothing known to the opposite; 3. Universal complexity, with no known source of the complexity. Nobody says that an atheist need follow or dig into any religion, not even the religion of science. Hopefully the atheist will live long enough and become mellow enough that he will want to find out what the truth is before it is too late for him. how can you prove cause and effect? you can only prove that we can perceive an effect. this says nothing about universal truth or knowledge. similarly, human perception of "time" is inherently flawed with subjectivity---how can we ever know or prove entropy? finally, "complexity" is not prima facie evidence of anything (certainly not intelligent design or anything similar) from an epistemological perspective, these are just buzz words. |
|
|
|
These days I can't believe people put such a low value on their time to spend countless hours clicking on them. Perhaps it'll result in a modest payoff a few years down the line. I think life is too valuable to waste that much time.
i think this is the intention. they may be nearly worthless now, "but when bitcoin is worth $1 million a pop".......  i took the same approach until some time in 2013, when there were better ways to use my time to make much more bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Isn't it 0.0001 as minimum?
that is the recommended, but usually , it depend on the amount you want to send, you can do good with much lower fee in the range of 0-1k you can use the auto-fee that is embedded in core i just send .0002 fee by default. i'm not gonna fret about a couple cents in fees. i've never had a transaction delayed beyond the next block, so this works just fine for me. YMMV, of course, during a stress test. |
|
|
|
Fortunately, I never wasted too much time on traditional faucets.
i wouldn't say that. back in the day -- 2010, maybe 2011 -- i recall hearing that one could net a full bitcoin with just a few (or even one) faucet payout. man, those must have been the days! i figured a bitcent was still pretty damn good when i started collecting from faucets. these days -- huge waste of time, yeah. |
|
|
|
All of you that have been paying attention to recent block chain movements and sales have probably seen the ever increasing cash outs by early adopters.
What do you think the reason for this is?
I see the opposite. Increasing number of late adopters are buying in. do you actually see evidence of this? or is this just pure speculation? serious question. aside from this recent small movement of 2009 coins, have their been other recent cases of early adopters moving coins? |
|
|
|
|
when i first got into bitcoin in late 2012, i used some faucets daily for a few months. i also used some daily giveaways on the forums into 2013 (PD, 777coin) that netted 0.01 or more per giveaway. definitely racked up a couple coins when all was said and done. but in early 2013 faucet payouts drastically reduced (so did giveaways) so i stopped wasting time on them.
|
|
|
|
In other words, why do atheists prefer to explain away observations by making up stories without any evidence?
Perhaps they are unaware of truth, or they are closed-minded, so they lash out against religions, which try to teach truth, but usually fail.
what is this "truth" you speak of? are you saying there is some kind of universal truth? how would you (or anyone) be able to recognize it as such? generally, religions, too, make unprovable assumptions about existence and of "truth." is lashing out against them unreasonable? my approach is to be skeptical of anything that is unprovable, unknowable. by definition, since human perception is subjective, that is virtually all knowledge. in other words, to be either a theist or an atheist is a nonsensical position to me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
